Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-02731
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, Judge Broderick authorized early subpoena discovery, with notice and a chance to challenge disclosure.
Strike 3 Holdings may seek the name and address associated with the specified Internet Protocol address. The unidentified subscriber and the internet service provider receive notice and an opportunity to challenge the subpoena before disclosure.
What happened
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued John Doe for allegedly downloading and sharing its films through BitTorrent. The company did not know Doe’s identity and identified the defendant by an Internet Protocol address.
Strike 3 asked to subpoena the internet service provider before the parties’ required initial discovery meeting. The court found that the company had shown enough for this request and appeared to have no other way to identify the person connected to the address.
Judge Broderick granted the motion but required protections for the subscriber. The provider must notify the subscriber, who has 45 days to challenge the subpoena or ask to remain anonymous before any information is released.
The detailed version
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe · No. 1:22-cv-02731
- Vernon Broderick
- Apr. 29, 2022
Background
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC alleged that John Doe used the BitTorrent file-sharing network to download and distribute the company’s films without authorization. The complaint asserted a claim for direct copyright infringement. Strike 3 did not know the defendant’s identity and identified Doe by the Internet Protocol address 74.73.36.136.
Strike 3 moved for permission to serve a subpoena on the defendant’s internet service provider before the parties held the discovery-planning conference generally required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The requested subpoena sought the name and address associated with the Internet Protocol address.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that early discovery may be allowed when there is good reason to permit it before the Rule 26(f) conference. It found that Strike 3 had stated a copyright-infringement claim sufficient for this motion and appeared to have no other way to identify the alleged infringer. The court also noted that an Internet Protocol address may be associated with someone other than the person who engaged in the alleged conduct, including other users of a wireless network.
Because the allegations involved downloading or distributing pornography, the court emphasized the risk that an innocent subscriber could be wrongly identified or pressured to settle. Strike 3 represented that it would not object if an alleged infringer sought to proceed anonymously and was willing to accept a protective order. The court therefore authorized the subpoena while establishing procedures to protect the subscriber’s opportunity to object.
Ruling
Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted Strike 3’s motion for leave to serve a third-party subpoena. Strike 3 may immediately serve the subpoena on the provider, attaching the order. The provider must notify the affected subscriber within 15 days after service. The subscriber then has 45 days after receiving the subpoena to file a motion challenging it, including a request to proceed anonymously. The provider may not disclose the requested information during that period.
If the 45-day period expires without a challenge, the provider must produce the information within 10 additional days. The provider may also challenge the subpoena, must protect the subscriber’s identifying information in any such filing, and must preserve the information while any challenge is pending. The order authorized discovery and set disclosure procedures; it did not decide whether copyright infringement occurred.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.